On September 11, 2025, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague found itself at the center of a legal and ethical storm. Lawyers for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, now 80, urged the court to indefinitely shelve its crimes against humanity case against their client, citing what they described as a profound and irreversible cognitive decline. The development has thrown the high-profile proceedings into uncertainty and ignited fierce debate among victims’ advocates, legal experts, and observers worldwide.
Duterte’s legal team, led by attorney Nicholas Kaufman, submitted a detailed filing to the ICC on Thursday, asserting that the former president’s mental faculties had deteriorated to such an extent that he was no longer fit to stand trial. According to documents made public by the ICC on September 11, Kaufman wrote, “Mr Duterte is not fit to stand trial as a result of cognitive impairment in multiple domains.” He further argued, “Mr Duterte’s condition will not improve and, for this reason, the Pre-Trial Chamber must adjourn all legal proceedings in his case indefinitely.”
The legal motion laid out a grim picture of Duterte’s health. The defense described “significant cognitive deficiencies” affecting his memory, daily functioning, executive skills, orientation, and capacity for complex reasoning. These impairments, they argued, rendered Duterte incapable of understanding the accusations against him or mounting a defense in court. The defense’s August 18 request, released to the public on September 11, emphasized that the former president’s condition had only worsened since his arrest.
Duterte’s troubles with the ICC stem from his years-long campaign against drug users and dealers in the Philippines, a policy that rights groups allege resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings. The ICC prosecutor’s application for Duterte’s arrest described the campaign as “part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population” and accused Duterte of 43 murders as crimes against humanity. The charges, the first of their kind against an Asian former head of state at the ICC, have drawn international attention and controversy.
According to AsiaOne and South China Morning Post, Duterte was arrested in Manila on March 11, 2025, and flown to the Netherlands that same night. Since then, he has been held at the ICC’s detention unit at Scheveningen Prison in The Hague. At his initial hearing, Duterte appeared via video link, reportedly looking dazed and frail, and spoke very little—an appearance that fueled speculation about his physical and mental state.
The defense’s argument for adjournment is rooted in established legal principles. International courts, including the ICC, are generally reluctant to proceed against defendants who are unable to comprehend the proceedings or participate in their own defense. As noted by Reuters, it is rare for international courts to declare suspects wholly unfit for trial, even as their age advances. However, precedent does exist: in 2023, a United Nations war crimes tribunal found that elderly Rwandan genocide suspect Felicien Kabuga was unfit to stand trial due to dementia. Kabuga remains in the UN detention unit in The Hague, as no state has agreed to accept him for provisional release.
In Duterte’s case, the defense’s filings have left many details—especially regarding the precise medical diagnosis—redacted. Nevertheless, the broad outlines are clear: the defense maintains that Duterte’s impairments are so severe and permanent that continuing the legal process would be both futile and unjust.
Duterte himself has consistently maintained that his arrest was unlawful, even calling it “tantamount to kidnapping.” This claim, reported by both AsiaOne and South China Morning Post, adds another layer of complexity to the case, as his legal team seeks not only to halt proceedings but also to question the very legitimacy of the ICC’s actions.
The ICC, for its part, responded earlier this week by adjourning the hearing originally scheduled for September 23, 2025. The judges announced they would first assess Duterte’s fitness for trial before moving forward with confirmation of the charges. The timeline for a final decision remains unclear, leaving all parties in a state of limbo.
The indefinite postponement has prompted outrage from advocates for the victims of Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Kristina Conti, a lawyer representing victims, voiced her frustration to AFP: “We expected that Duterte would do this, but the fact that he was able to convince the pre-trial chamber to postpone that indefinitely is scary.” For many families of those killed during Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, the delay feels like a denial of justice long sought.
The ICC prosecutor’s office has not commented publicly on the defense’s medical claims, but its earlier filings were unequivocal about the scale and gravity of the alleged crimes. The prosecutor alleged that “potentially tens of thousands of killings were perpetrated” during Duterte’s campaign, mostly targeting poor men and often without proof of any drug links.
The current legal standoff raises difficult questions about justice, accountability, and the rights of the accused. International law recognizes the right of every defendant to a fair trial, including the ability to understand the charges and participate in their defense. At the same time, there is a powerful imperative to provide justice for victims of mass atrocities and to hold leaders accountable for abuses of power.
Legal analysts note that even if Duterte is found unfit for trial, it does not automatically mean he will be released from detention. As seen in the Kabuga case, suspects deemed unfit may remain in custody if no country is willing to accept them or if there are concerns about their safety or the risk of flight. The ICC judges’ eventual ruling will likely set an important precedent for future cases involving elderly or ailing defendants.
Meanwhile, the Philippine public and international observers remain divided. Some see the ICC proceedings as a necessary reckoning for a leader whose policies led to widespread suffering. Others, including Duterte’s supporters, argue that the case is politically motivated and that the former president is being unfairly targeted in his old age.
With the hearings postponed and Duterte’s fate uncertain, the world is left waiting for the ICC’s next move. Will the court find that justice can be served despite the defendant’s frailty, or will it conclude that the pursuit of accountability must yield to the realities of age and illness? For now, the case stands as a stark reminder of the challenges facing international justice in an era when the line between accountability and compassion is anything but clear.
As the legal process grinds on, the eyes of the world remain fixed on The Hague, watching to see how the ICC will balance its mandate for justice with the complex human realities before it.
